Shibboleth Developers

[Scott Cantor <>]

> I am sorry to be a bad guy on this, but I really don't see 
> how this level of policy detail can qualify as being part of 
> the Shib architecture.  

We have to at least describe what goes into them and what they mean, or
frankly, they shouldn't appear in the document at all. That would make
them more or less equivalent to what's currently in the document to
describe acceptance policies, which is pretty much nothing. It just says
what they roughly do, and says the rest is up to implementers. That's a
better way of making it clear we don't address it. I wouldn't want to go
halfway.

> And yes, this comment applies to existing text in 
> shib-arch-04, specifically the last sentence of section 
> 5.6.4, which I suppose is more or less the same as the result 
> of today's debate.  I think I recall saying this a few months 
> ago, though of course I probably also volunteered to write 
> new text regarding this which of course I haven't.

I don't recall a specific motion to remove all of the detail surrounding
ARPs, which is what this would need to be, I think. It's a lot more than
just a sentence. I don't see any reason to describe anything detailed
about them at all if they aren't explicitly going to be consistent
across AAs.

> I wouldn't want potential implementors thinking that they're more 
> constrained than they really are.

I'm open to moving this to a separate document, I guess. What do others
think?

-- Scott

------------------------------------------------------mace-shib-design-+
For list utilities, archives, subscribe, unsubscribe, etc. please visit the
ListProc web interface at 

    http://archives.internet2.edu/

------------------------------------------------------mace-shib-design--